Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 34
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!

    Baseball Hall of Fame

    We get new inductees this afternoon. Roberto Alomar seems to be the most likely to make it of the first-timers on the ballot. Barry Larkin, Fred McGriff, and Edgar Martinez are also on the ballot for the first time but will likely come up short. Holdovers Andre Dawson and Bert Blyleven have a shot at making it as they were sorta close to getting in last year.

    Also worth noting, Randy Johnson retired today. He will be a lock to get in when he is elligible in 5 years. My question is... does he wear a Seattle or Arizona hat when his bust in unveiled?

    He was in Seattle for 10 years vs. 8 in Arizona but he won 4 Cy Youngs and a World Series ring in Arizona versus 1 Cy Young in Seattle.

    --Jason "I am sure there will be a huge debate about Blyleven now that I brought this up" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Andre Dawson made it... nobody else.


    I grew up making trips up I-5 to the King Dome to see the Johnson/Griffey (Jr.+Sr.)/Martinez/Buhner teams. As much as I would like to see him go in with the Mariners (I'm a Dodger fan, so I don't care all that much), I think he'll go in with Arizona. Beyond the awards/championship, they brought him back after that stint with the Yankees and he would be the first player in franchise history to be inducted (right?). I think that might overcome his roots in Seattle.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    He was in Seattle for 10 years vs. 8 in Arizona but he won 4 Cy Youngs and a World Series ring in Arizona versus 1 Cy Young in Seattle.
    s
    I think you just answered your own question.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    We get new inductees this afternoon. Roberto Alomar seems to be the most likely to make it of the first-timers on the ballot.
    You can't spit in an umpire's face and then make it into the HOF in your first year of eligibility.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    "I am sure there will be a huge debate about Blyleven now that I brought this up"
    Well, no debate necessary, I guess, as he didn't make it but he missed by such a narrow margin he's virtually assured of getting in next year (when there isn't much in the way of newcomers to the ballot to take votes from him). So neither side of the debate should be too happy or too upset. It's a shame he'll have to wait one more year, though.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by YourLandlord View Post
    I think you just answered your own question.
    I did? Care to elaborate?

    -Jason
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    I did? Care to elaborate?

    -Jason
    Your post made it pretty clear, at least to me, that it should be Arizona. He was a truly outstanding pitcher in Seattle. He was an mlb god in Arizona.
    Demented and sad, but social, right?

  8. #8

    HOF vote

    Jason, for once Landlord and I agree -- I think it's obvious that Johnson goes in wearing an Arizona Diamondback hat. Despite the extra years in Seattle, his greatest years were in Arizona.

    Of course, you know it's the HOF choice. The Hall used to let the player decide which hat he would wear in eternity, but Wade Boggs screwed that up. At the end of his career, negiotiating a contract with Tampa Bay, he tried to get a clause put in that would pay him extra money in return for picking the Devil Rays (the nickname at the time) for his HOF. That would have been a travesty -- even though he won his WS ring with th Yankees, Boggs is basically a Red Sox. So the Hall took it out of the players' hands.

    Overall, this year's vote makes me sad. Obviously, the media shills are going to gush about the choice of Dawson, but to me it's a weak pick and along with borderline veteran's committee pick Whitey Herzog, maybe the weakest HOF class in modern times. Yeah, ump Doug Harvey is a deserved pick, but who gets excited about a HOF umpire?

    To me, the election of Dawson is a victory for the old-line baseball stat crew -- the ones who focus on triple crown numbers and refuse to look any deeper.

    Dawson has good (but not great) triple crown numbers -- .279 BA, 438 HR, 1591 RBI. That works out to a 162-game season average of .279 27 98.

    On the other hand, he had a subpar career OBP of .323 to go with his good (but, again, not great) SLUG of .482. The result is an extremely mediocre .806 career OPS ... which translates into a 119 OPS plus -- a figure that is good, but not great.

    By contrast, Fred McGriff, who had career triple crown numbers (.284 32 102 ) that were better than Dawson's in every single category -- over almost as many games got 21.5 percent of the vote. McGriff's career OPS of .886 (134 OPS plus) dwarfs Dawson's career numbers.

    I was looking at three more guys who have very similar (but slightly superior) career numbers to Dawson, who landed near the end of this year's ballot. Why does Dawson get in while Dale Murphy (.815 OPS/121 OPS plus), Dave Parker (.810 OPS/ 121 OPS plus) and Don Mattingly (.830 OPS/127 OPS plus) are all under 20 percent of the vote?

    Obviously I believe that Blyleven and Alomar, who just missed induction, are more worthy than Dawson. But I'd like to highlight three guys farther down the ballot who are to my mind clearly more deserving:

    -- OF Tim Raines (30.4 percent of the vote). The exact opposite of Dawson in that his triple crown numbers aren't as imprerssive -- a 162-game average of .294 11 63 (although as a leadoff hitter, his average of 102 runs scored a year should count for more than his RBIs). His career OPS of .810 with a 123 OPS plus are superior to Dawson. Raines is the second greatest leadoff hitter in history -- he has the misfortune to have played at almost exactly the same time as the greatest leadoff hitter (Ricky Henderson).

    -- SS Barry Larkin (51.6 percent of the vote). Are you kidding me? This guy is the SS equivilent of Alomar, who barely missed. What are the voters looking for? This guy is almost as effective a hitter as Dawson (.815 OPS/116 OPS plus), plus he's a gold glove SS. He's one of the top 10 shortstops in history -- like Raines, he's had the misfortune to have his career overlap two better SSs (Ripken and Jeter; actually Larkin was better defensively than either ... just not quite as good offensively -- but still better than 99 percent of the SS in baseball history). But he was great.

    -- SS Alan Trammell (22.4 percent). Like contemporary Ryne Sandberg, Trammell is hurt by playing in a low-power era. But he was a great player for a long, long time. His career 110 OPS plus is not far off Dawson's OF numbers and he was a much more valuable defensive player (Dawson was a superb defensive RF ... but a superb defensive SS is still much more valuable).

    I could make a case for Jack Morris or Lee Smith as better choices than Dawson, but the ones I listed above bother me the most.

    Let me add one more point. I don't like to give too much weight to players on "winning" teams, but I certainly have to factor in when a player leads a team to greatness (for instance, Curt Schillings' HOF numbers are borderline, but when you add his WS performances for Arizona in 2001 and Boston in 2004, you have to like his chances).

    Of the players I've been talking about which one do you think played on the least successful teams? Well, Mattingly's teams won a lot more than Dawsons, but he played in the postseason just once.

    Dawson played in two LCS and never in the world series. Larkin, Parker, Trammell, Raines, McGriff and even Murphy played on more successful teams than Dawson. I don't blame him for that, but you certainly can't give him extra credit for making his team a winner.

    PS Interesting that McGuire continues to be shunned by the voters. I'm not saying he deserves to go in (although he has a better case than Dawson), but his 23.7 percent of the vote indicates that the voters are still punishing the druggies.

    Wonder how that impacts Bonds, a clearcut first-ballot HOFer but an unrepentant druggie? And what about A-Roid, who has offered his mea culpas.

    BTW, it will be interesting to see what hat the HOF choose for A-Roid if he does get in. He played seven years in Seattle and Texas three years. He just completed his sixth season in NY and got his first ring. He's got two MVPs with the Yankees and one with the Rangers.

    His numbers are actually better in Texas (1.011 OPS). His Yankee OPS (.968) is better than his Seattle OPS (.934).

    I'd say after next season, there's no question -- he goes in as a Yankee (assuming his drug use doesn't keep him out).
    Last edited by Olympic Fan; 01-07-2010 at 12:38 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    St. Louis
    OF, we have already disagreed about Herzog. I agree with most of what you wrote. I think the most obvious player omissions to this point are Alomar and Blyleven, and I think they'll be rectified next year. I also think that overall, the person who is most deserving, but not in, is Marvin Miller.

    Voting in Jim Rice probably made it easier to elect Dawson (a better player than Rice IMO).

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Fayetteville, NC
    I guess I'm way to old school, but all this number crunching takes the fun out of the game.
    You may not like the Hawk's OBP, but like Rice during his prime he was one of the most feared hitters in the game.

    As for Blyleven and Alomar not making it I think that's a joke. During the past 70 years only Joe Morgan rivals Alomar as a 2B. Blyleven has 60 shutouts, that nearly 25% of his wins!

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by ncexnyc View Post
    Blyleven has 60 shutouts, that nearly 25% of his wins!
    Nevermind that! According to various sportswriters (Jon Heyman, I'm looking your unenlightened way), he wasn't "dominant." Nevermind also finishing his career with the third highest strikeout total of all time, gifting to the game's history possibly the most devestating overhand curveball ever, and finishing in the top 10 in the league in WHIP 11 times. "Dominant" apparently equals coastal sportwriters from the 1970's, who knew absolutely nothing about guys from the Indians, Twins or Angels other than their W-L records, miraculously giving you their Cy Young votes.

    I'm generally on board with OF's analysis of other deserving players who should have made it before Dawson, with a couple quibbles: I remain unsold on Trammell, who I recall being a very good to excellent player but who I'd find it a lot easier to leave out of a list of the top 10 shortstops of all time than Larkin. Also, I'm a long way from thinking Jack Morris should be in. Guy's got a lifetime 3.90 ERA, with a 105 ERA+. That's not a Hall of Famer. This is coming from a Twins fan who was at Game 7 in '91. I acknowledge that and other postseason performances (as well as the career postseason ERA of 3.80), but they shouldn't overshadow the pedestrian base numbers he sports. His best season saw a 133 ERA+. Just by way of example, Blyleven, who's apparently the textbook borderline starting pitcher (don't get me started on guys like Sutter and Smith getting in before him) had seasons with higher ERA+'s 7 times. Not that that's the be-all, end-all of pitching stats, of course, but it's illustrative.

    I'm trying to think of the equivalent for a position player, but inducting Morris might be something like inducting Joe Carter because of his homerun off Mitch Williams. Take that away and what are you left with? (Other than that Mal has a problem with the mid-'80's Detroit Tigers, I guess. )

    Back to Larkin, I'm glad to see him get the acclaim he's getting. I never thought he'd become one of the "how can they not be voting for this guy?" guys, as I thought he was greatly underappreciated while he was playing. OF mentioned his being overshadowed by Ripken and Jeter, but don't forget his being overshadowed by Ozzie, too. There were three or four years at the beginning of Larkin's career where to any impartial observer he was clearly the best SS in the NL, but his reputation suffered from Oz still being around. Anyway, I modeled myself after Larkin as a young shortstop, he was my favorite player as a teenager and I'm gratified to see him get over 50% of the votes on his first try. This is why it's a good thing they wait awhile before voting on players after their retirement - with all the blossoming of great power-hitting SS's the last decade, Larkin's career needed to be seen in the context of its own time and the times before it, and not solely in comparison with Jeter and ARod.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    St. Louis
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    Nevermind that! According to various sportswriters (Jon Heyman, I'm looking your unenlightened way), he wasn't "dominant." Nevermind also finishing his career with the third highest strikeout total of all time, gifting to the game's history possibly the most devestating overhand curveball ever, and finishing in the top 10 in the league in WHIP 11 times. "Dominant" apparently equals coastal sportwriters from the 1970's, who knew absolutely nothing about guys from the Indians, Twins or Angels other than their W-L records, miraculously giving you their Cy Young votes.

    I'm generally on board with OF's analysis of other deserving players who should have made it before Dawson, with a couple quibbles: I remain unsold on Trammell, who I recall being a very good to excellent player but who I'd find it a lot easier to leave out of a list of the top 10 shortstops of all time than Larkin. Also, I'm a long way from thinking Jack Morris should be in. Guy's got a lifetime 3.90 ERA, with a 105 ERA+. That's not a Hall of Famer. This is coming from a Twins fan who was at Game 7 in '91. I acknowledge that and other postseason performances (as well as the career postseason ERA of 3.80), but they shouldn't overshadow the pedestrian base numbers he sports. His best season saw a 133 ERA+. Just by way of example, Blyleven, who's apparently the textbook borderline starting pitcher (don't get me started on guys like Sutter and Smith getting in before him) had seasons with higher ERA+'s 7 times. Not that that's the be-all, end-all of pitching stats, of course, but it's illustrative.

    I'm trying to think of the equivalent for a position player, but inducting Morris might be something like inducting Joe Carter because of his homerun off Mitch Williams. Take that away and what are you left with? (Other than that Mal has a problem with the mid-'80's Detroit Tigers, I guess. )

    Back to Larkin, I'm glad to see him get the acclaim he's getting. I never thought he'd become one of the "how can they not be voting for this guy?" guys, as I thought he was greatly underappreciated while he was playing. OF mentioned his being overshadowed by Ripken and Jeter, but don't forget his being overshadowed by Ozzie, too. There were three or four years at the beginning of Larkin's career where to any impartial observer he was clearly the best SS in the NL, but his reputation suffered from Oz still being around. Anyway, I modeled myself after Larkin as a young shortstop, he was my favorite player as a teenager and I'm gratified to see him get over 50% of the votes on his first try. This is why it's a good thing they wait awhile before voting on players after their retirement - with all the blossoming of great power-hitting SS's the last decade, Larkin's career needed to be seen in the context of its own time and the times before it, and not solely in comparison with Jeter and ARod.
    There are some who say that Mazeroski is that Joe Carter equivalent. (I don't agree; I value glove work and Maz was amazing.)

    Larkin will get in eventually. You're right that Ozzie was siphoning away some of Larkin's glory (and gold gloves). That was chickens coming home to roost; when Ozzie broke in, Concepcion was still getting them.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The City of Brotherly Love except when it's cold.
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    Overall, this year's vote makes me sad. Obviously, the media shills are going to gush about the choice of Dawson, but to me it's a weak pick and along with borderline veteran's committee pick Whitey Herzog, maybe the weakest HOF class in modern times. Yeah, ump Doug Harvey is a deserved pick, but who gets excited about a HOF umpire?

    To me, the election of Dawson is a victory for the old-line baseball stat crew -- the ones who focus on triple crown numbers and refuse to look any deeper.

    Dawson has good (but not great) triple crown numbers -- .279 BA, 438 HR, 1591 RBI. That works out to a 162-game season average of .279 27 98.

    On the other hand, he had a subpar career OBP of .323 to go with his good (but, again, not great) SLUG of .482. The result is an extremely mediocre .806 career OPS ... which translates into a 119 OPS plus -- a figure that is good, but not great.

    By contrast, Fred McGriff, who had career triple crown numbers (.284 32 102 ) that were better than Dawson's in every single category -- over almost as many games got 21.5 percent of the vote. McGriff's career OPS of .886 (134 OPS plus) dwarfs Dawson's career numbers.

    I was looking at three more guys who have very similar (but slightly superior) career numbers to Dawson, who landed near the end of this year's ballot. Why does Dawson get in while Dale Murphy (.815 OPS/121 OPS plus), Dave Parker (.810 OPS/ 121 OPS plus) and Don Mattingly (.830 OPS/127 OPS plus) are all under 20 percent of the vote?

    Obviously I believe that Blyleven and Alomar, who just missed induction, are more worthy than Dawson. But I'd like to highlight three guys farther down the ballot who are to my mind clearly more deserving:

    -- OF Tim Raines (30.4 percent of the vote). The exact opposite of Dawson in that his triple crown numbers aren't as imprerssive -- a 162-game average of .294 11 63 (although as a leadoff hitter, his average of 102 runs scored a year should count for more than his RBIs). His career OPS of .810 with a 123 OPS plus are superior to Dawson. Raines is the second greatest leadoff hitter in history -- he has the misfortune to have played at almost exactly the same time as the greatest leadoff hitter (Ricky Henderson).

    -- SS Barry Larkin (51.6 percent of the vote). Are you kidding me? This guy is the SS equivilent of Alomar, who barely missed. What are the voters looking for? This guy is almost as effective a hitter as Dawson (.815 OPS/116 OPS plus), plus he's a gold glove SS. He's one of the top 10 shortstops in history -- like Raines, he's had the misfortune to have his career overlap two better SSs (Ripken and Jeter; actually Larkin was better defensively than either ... just not quite as good offensively -- but still better than 99 percent of the SS in baseball history). But he was great.

    -- SS Alan Trammell (22.4 percent). Like contemporary Ryne Sandberg, Trammell is hurt by playing in a low-power era. But he was a great player for a long, long time. His career 110 OPS plus is not far off Dawson's OF numbers and he was a much more valuable defensive player (Dawson was a superb defensive RF ... but a superb defensive SS is still much more valuable).

    I could make a case for Jack Morris or Lee Smith as better choices than Dawson, but the ones I listed above bother me the most.

    Let me add one more point. I don't like to give too much weight to players on "winning" teams, but I certainly have to factor in when a player leads a team to greatness (for instance, Curt Schillings' HOF numbers are borderline, but when you add his WS performances for Arizona in 2001 and Boston in 2004, you have to like his chances).

    Of the players I've been talking about which one do you think played on the least successful teams? Well, Mattingly's teams won a lot more than Dawsons, but he played in the postseason just once.

    Dawson played in two LCS and never in the world series. Larkin, Parker, Trammell, Raines, McGriff and even Murphy played on more successful teams than Dawson. I don't blame him for that, but you certainly can't give him extra credit for making his team a winner.

    PS Interesting that McGuire continues to be shunned by the voters. I'm not saying he deserves to go in (although he has a better case than Dawson), but his 23.7 percent of the vote indicates that the voters are still punishing the druggies.

    Wonder how that impacts Bonds, a clearcut first-ballot HOFer but an unrepentant druggie? And what about A-Roid, who has offered his mea culpas.

    BTW, it will be interesting to see what hat the HOF choose for A-Roid if he does get in. He played seven years in Seattle and Texas three years. He just completed his sixth season in NY and got his first ring. He's got two MVPs with the Yankees and one with the Rangers.

    His numbers are actually better in Texas (1.011 OPS). His Yankee OPS (.968) is better than his Seattle OPS (.934).

    I'd say after next season, there's no question -- he goes in as a Yankee (assuming his drug use doesn't keep him out).
    Baseball is much more than a game of offense. Dawson was one of the best outfielders of his time winning 8 golden gloves with arguably the best arm ever-an absolute dead on cannon. Your statement that McGuire has a better case than Dawson is simply absurd and discredits the rest of your arguments that are shallowly focused on offensive stats.

    Here is a quote from HOFamer Ryne Sandberg about Dawson. Perhaps you might characterize him as just another member of "the old-line baseball stat crew that refuses to look any deeper."

    "He's the best I've ever seen. I watched him win an MVP for a last-place team in 1987 [with the Cubs], and it was the most unbelievable thing I've ever seen in baseball.(emphasis mine)" Sandberg concluded, "He did it the right way, the natural way(unlike someone we know-my comment), and he did it in the field and on the bases and in every way, and I hope he will stand up here someday."

    I'm glad Andre made it because in addition to being a HOF talent, he's a genuinely great guy who contributed a lot the south Florida community and was a nice neighbor of mine in Coral Gables.
    Last edited by 77devil; 01-07-2010 at 06:07 PM.

  14. #14

    in and out

    Quote Originally Posted by rasputin View Post
    There are some who say that Mazeroski is that Joe Carter equivalent. (I don't agree; I value glove work and Maz was amazing.)

    Larkin will get in eventually. You're right that Ozzie was siphoning away some of Larkin's glory (and gold gloves). That was chickens coming home to roost; when Ozzie broke in, Concepcion was still getting them.
    The one thing Maz has going for him is the ability to turn the double play. According to Bill James, who has crunched the numbers (figuring expected DPs considering baserunners allowed, strikeouts, fly ball outs, etc.) Maz is far and away the greatest second baseman at turning the DP in baseball history. It's not even close.

    Note: Maz is the best at turning the DP ... not necessarily the greatest defensive second-baseman (when you take into account range). Still, he was a GREAT defensive second baseman and turning the DP is not an inconsiderable skill.

    BTW, for anybody interested, the greatest SS at turning the DP was Phil Rizzuto (again, not the greatest defensive SS, just the best at turning the DP). Rizzuto was also part of the greatest DP combo in history, along with second baseman Joe Gordon (again, James' rankings are not based on raw numbers, but the numbers above the expected DP totals).

    Interesting that all three are now in the HOF after a long wait.

    Just to clarify, while I stand by my assertion that Larkin is one of the top 10 SS in baseball history, I didn't mean to claim that Trammell was in the top 10. But he's clearly better than a lot of SS that are in the Hall, including Travis Jackson, Joe Tinker and (probably) the aforementioned Rizzuto. To be fair, I agree with Bill James that it's silly to argument by what he calls "the rule of the lowest common demoniator" -- i.e. if one bad pick gets in, then everybody better than than bad pick should get in.

    As for Morris, I think he's a lot like Schilling -- a very borderline HOF candidate who enhances his chances by not one, but two dominant WS performances. He won more games than any other pitcher in the 1980s and he was a star for the '84 Tigers and '91 Blue Jays.

    That said, I really don't think all the guys I mentioned -- Parker, Mattingly, Murphy, Lee Smith or even Morris -- should be in the Hall. I just think they should be ahead of Dawson in line.

    As for Blyleven, Alomar and Larkin -- they definitely DO belong in the Hall.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    St. Louis

    Larkin and the Top Ten

    You may be right that Larkin is in the all time top 10 for the position. My sorta quickly put together top 10 reads like this: (ground rules: you're considered a SS if you played mostly that position, and OK to consider the player's production at other positions if he meets that requirement; that's the Ernie Banks/Robin Yount/Cal Ripken rule; and if you're an active player, you have to have a very substantial body of work for a career--so OK to consider Jeter or A-Rod or Nomah, but not Jimmy Rollins.)

    1 Honus Wagner
    2 A-Rod
    3 Ripken
    4 Banks
    5 Cronin
    6 Luke Appling
    7 Ozzie
    8 Yount
    9 Arky Vaughan
    10 Jeter

    Others get close to cracking this list: Aparicio, George Davis.
    Where do you put Larkin?

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    Just to clarify, while I stand by my assertion that Larkin is one of the top 10 SS in baseball history, I didn't mean to claim that Trammell was in the top 10.
    Understood, and I didn't mean to imply that the Hall should be limited to 10 SS, either, of course. Just that Trammell's certainly a cut below obvious inclusion to my mind. He certainly helped usher in an age of expecting your shortstop to hit better than .250 and showing at least some slight pop, but Ripken's the guy who really changed the perception of what a shortstop can do at the plate. Which is unfair to Trammell, I guess.

    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    But he's clearly better than a lot of SS that are in the Hall, including Travis Jackson, Joe Tinker and (probably) the aforementioned Rizzuto. To be fair, I agree with Bill James that it's silly to argument by what he calls "the rule of the lowest common demoniator" -- i.e. if one bad pick gets in, then everybody better than than bad pick should get in.
    True enough, and I completely agree on the lowest common demoninator issue w/r/t shortstops; half the guys on MLB rosters today are better than Travis Jackson (Hyperbole? Yes. Gross hyperbole? Probably not.), who never garnered even close to 10% of the votes during his normal eligibility. I don't know much about him, but he must have had a lot of friends on the Veterans Committee.

    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    As for Morris, I think he's a lot like Schilling -- a very borderline HOF candidate who enhances his chances by not one, but two dominant WS performances. He won more games than any other pitcher in the 1980s and he was a star for the '84 Tigers and '91 Blue Jays.
    I see we're on the same side of this generally, but I'll keep debating anyway because it's fun and I don't think Morris should even be close. I don't really care who won the most games in a particular decade. Mark Grace had more base hits than anyone else in the '90s, but that doesn't help his HOF case. Was Morris the best starting pitcher of the 1980's? No, and I don't think he was particularly close, either. And, when not in the 1980's, Morris wasn't all that good, outside of '92 when he somehow managed to win 21 games with an ERA over 4. For the record, that was the season with the Jays, not '91. And while he won a ton of games and starred during the regular season, he got absolutely shelled, and went 0-3, in the postseason that year. In '91, he was with the Twins, where of course he had what has to be considered one of the greatest World Series pitching performances of all time, but bear in mind that despite taking on the playoff ace role he was clearly the third best starter on the team during the season.

    Schilling will be an interesting case when the time comes. Clearly, short on the big counting stat of wins, but the thresholds for that obviously need to change in light of game evolution. And you're right, weight is given to postseason, and Schilling's actually been a better postseason pitcher than Morris. The best case for him, though, is just effectiveness. The guy has a career ERA+ of 127 and a WHIP of just over 1.1. Those are outstanding numbers. He'll suffer by having to hit the ballot in the middle of an onslaught of great pitchers, however, and will struggle for attention alongside Martinez, Johnson, Clemens, Maddux, Smoltz, and Glavine. Hardly any starters who peaked between the mid-'70s through the '80s have managed to get in, and Schilling will be asking that a 7th from the '90s' through early '00's make it.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by rasputin View Post
    You may be right that Larkin is in the all time top 10 for the position. My sorta quickly put together top 10 reads like this: (ground rules: you're considered a SS if you played mostly that position, and OK to consider the player's production at other positions if he meets that requirement; that's the Ernie Banks/Robin Yount/Cal Ripken rule; and if you're an active player, you have to have a very substantial body of work for a career--so OK to consider Jeter or A-Rod or Nomah, but not Jimmy Rollins.)

    1 Honus Wagner
    2 A-Rod
    3 Ripken
    4 Banks
    5 Cronin
    6 Luke Appling
    7 Ozzie
    8 Yount
    9 Arky Vaughan
    10 Jeter

    Others get close to cracking this list: Aparicio, George Davis.
    Where do you put Larkin?
    Well, depends on your definition of "most," but I think even your criteria removes Banks, ARod (after another couple seasons in NY) and Yount from eligibility. Banks spent more time at first base than at short, although his peak was at shortstop. Yount spent almost 2/3 of his career doing things other than manning the 6.

    Personally, I tend to think you need well more than a majority of your games at a position to be considered to be "of" that position. It's totally unfair to A-Rod, Banks and Yount, of course, and two of those guys are obviously better overall ballplayers than Larkin, but in terms of the impact they have on the history of a particular position, I think differently. I'd probably put Larkin ahead of Yount, anyway, though, and also Appling, Ozzie, Aparicio and Davis. So anywhere between 7 and 10 or so? Re: your list, I'd move Jeter up, I'd have Vaughan in the top 5 for sure, I'd lower Appling, and I'd probably have Ozzie at the bottom of the 10 - he was just such an average hitter at best. His defense was incredible, but it's hard to put a guy with one .300 season in a discussion of best ever.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    St. Louis
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    Well, depends on your definition of "most," but I think even your criteria removes Banks, ARod (after another couple seasons in NY) and Yount from eligibility. Banks spent more time at first base than at short, although his peak was at shortstop. Yount spent almost 2/3 of his career doing things other than manning the 6.

    Personally, I tend to think you need well more than a majority of your games at a position to be considered to be "of" that position. It's totally unfair to A-Rod, Banks and Yount, of course, and two of those guys are obviously better overall ballplayers than Larkin, but in terms of the impact they have on the history of a particular position, I think differently. I'd probably put Larkin ahead of Yount, anyway, though, and also Appling, Ozzie, Aparicio and Davis. So anywhere between 7 and 10 or so? Re: your list, I'd move Jeter up, I'd have Vaughan in the top 5 for sure, I'd lower Appling, and I'd probably have Ozzie at the bottom of the 10 - he was just such an average hitter at best. His defense was incredible, but it's hard to put a guy with one .300 season in a discussion of best ever.
    Yount played eleven full seasons at short, and nine in the outfield, with a smattering of games at 1B or DH. He did NOT play 2/3 of his career at places other than short, and it makes no sense to consider him at any other position. And, as you point out, Banks' best years and biggest contributions were as a shortstop, not a first baseman.

    Obviously Ozzie's primary value was his glove, but you are underestimating his offensive contributions. His first few years (in San Diego) were terrible offensively. By the time he got to St. Louis, he had improved his hitting considerably, and was doing that hitting in a very difficult ballpark. He drew a fair amount of walks, stole a lot of bases, and didn't get caught stealing much. And he was a very, very smart ballplayer.

  19. #19

    shortstop

    I love this stuff ...

    First, let's see who is a shortstop and who isn't.

    Robin Yount played 12,945 innings at SS and 10,515 in the OF (also 64 at 1B and 138 games as a DH). Shortstop.

    A-Roid has played 10,938 innings at SS and 7,467 at 3B (also 29 games as a DH). Right now he's a shortstop. In 2-3 years, he will have played more games at third. Oddly, that could work in his favor historically -- as great as he's been (ignoring the PEDs), he's never going to catch Honus Wagner as the greatest SS ever. But he could make a case to be a greater player than Mike Schmidt as the greatest 3B ever.

    Ernie Banks played more slightly innings at 1B (10,792) than SS (9,863). But it's close and as others have noted, he had his greatest impact at SS. Surprisingly, he was a very good defensive SS at a time that he was hitting at a level that only Wagner and A-Roid have matched at SS (well, maybe Vern Stephens for a very, very short time).

    I don't agree very much with rasputin's top 10 list -- I think he has Arky Vaughn and Derek Jeter much too low. For instance, Jeter was a much more effective offensive player (121 OPS plus) than Yount (115) or Ripkin (112) and he's already played more games at SS than either. None of the three were great defenders at short.

    How do you rank them? I found this list from Bill James that he made after the 2000 season. In his revised Historical Baseball Abstract, he ranks SS this way:

    1. Honus Wagner
    2. Arky Vaughan
    3. Cal Ripken
    4. Robin Yount
    5. Ernie Banks
    6. Barry Larkin (who was still playing but almost finished)
    7. Ozzie Smith
    8. Joe Cronin
    9. Alan Trammell
    10. Pee Wee Reese

    (for the record, his next six were Luke Appling, Lou Boudreau, Luis Aparicio, George Davis, Jim Fregosi and Phil Rizzuto).

    He has Alex Rodriguez, then at mid-career at No. 17 ... he follows with Jeter and Garciaparra as unranked players, suggesting that all three were on HOF tracks, but it was too early to rank them,

    Well, thanks to injures, Nomar is clearly out of the running for HOF status -- much less top 10. A-Roid and Jeter are already HOF locks -- the question is where they deserve to rank in the top 10. Together, they have to bump Trammell and Reese out of the top 10.

    I would agree with rasputin that A-Roid is No. 2, especially if we add the two MVPs and the six great seasons he's had at third base to his MVP and great seasons at SS. Only Wagner's greatness (he's probably the second-greatest player in baseball history -- only Ruth was clearly better) keep him at No. 2.

    Jeter is harder to fit. He's better offensively that anybody on the list except Wagner, A-Roid and Banks. Actually, considering career length, he has more offensive win shares than Banks. And he has more offensive win shares at SS than A-Roid.

    How much credit to you give for longevity? Banks and A-Roid were better offensively for about half as many games at Jeter has played at short. Even Ripken didn't play as many games at short as Jeter.

    Then there's defense. In his 2000 essay, James ranks the top 5 shortstops in offensive value and his top 5 in defensive value.

    Wagner tops both lists (that's not to say he's a greater defensive SS than Ozzie, but he was better when measured against the SS or his era than Ozzie was when measured against the SS or his era).

    James' top 5 offensive SS (in 2000 and based on career win shares) were Wagner, Yount, Vaughn, Davis and Ripken. His top 5 defensive SS were Wagner, Ozzie, Bill Dahlen, Rabbitt Maranville and Pee Wee Reese.

    I think that if he did this list today, Jeter would be No. 3 (behind Wagner and A-Roid) on the offensive list. I won't insult you by suggesting that he's knocking on the top five defensively.

    Overall, I'm not sure where Jeter will end up ranked -- probably somewhere in the 3-4-5-6 range overall. He already has more hits at SS than anyone who has ever played the game. He's going to play the position longer than anybody -- and he's doing it while playing a key role for a successful team.

    But to get back to the original topic, I think James would agree with me that Barry Larkin is a top 10 shortstop of all time and it's ridiculous that he would be passed over in his first HOF bid.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by rasputin View Post
    Yount played eleven full seasons at short, and nine in the outfield, with a smattering of games at 1B or DH. He did NOT play 2/3 of his career at places other than short, and it makes no sense to consider him at any other position. And, as you point out, Banks' best years and biggest contributions were as a shortstop, not a first baseman.

    Obviously Ozzie's primary value was his glove, but you are underestimating his offensive contributions. His first few years (in San Diego) were terrible offensively. By the time he got to St. Louis, he had improved his hitting considerably, and was doing that hitting in a very difficult ballpark. He drew a fair amount of walks, stole a lot of bases, and didn't get caught stealing much. And he was a very, very smart ballplayer.
    Whoops. Bad counting on my part. In terms of overall games at SS, it was over 50%. It's still hard for me not to think of his impact on the history of shortstops a little differently than that of someone who played all or close to all of their career at short, though.

    My guess on Ozzie is that playing at Busch Stadium probably helped him greatly at the plate. While his opportunities to bunt for singles were less than they would be elsewhere, I'd wager he collected at least a hundred more ground ball base hits there over the course of his career than he would have on grass. A deep outfield isn't a factor for a guy who finishes his career with an OPS+ of 87 and 28 homeruns. That's power that probably doesn't even match most deadball era shortstops. His offensive production barely bested Rabbit Maranville, who's not even close to anyone's list of top 10 shortstops ever. He did steal a lot of bases, true enough. Had he been a better hitter and thus able to bat at the top of the lineup, that probably would have translated into a lot more runs scored than his 1,257, however.

    Anyway, I need to get some work done before the weekend. I'll leave this discussion by mentioning how cool it is that the Pirates could make an argument for having fostered the two best shortstops ever. And how amazing it is that one of them has probably never been heard of by 75% of even semi-serious fans, despite having arguably the greatest single season at the plate any shortstop has ever had (1935 - .385/.491/.607, with 97 BBs and just 18 Ks), and the other is known mostly for having a valuable baseball card.

Similar Threads

  1. Baseball Hall of Fame discussion
    By Angel in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: 08-25-2009, 01:54 PM
  2. NFL Hall of Fame
    By rockymtn devil in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-01-2009, 11:25 AM
  3. TillyGalore's Hall of Fame Weekend
    By EarlJam in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 07-10-2008, 11:46 PM
  4. NC Sports Hall of Fame inducts Butters and Hart
    By Bluedawg in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-16-2008, 09:17 AM
  5. Hall of Fame debate
    By Olympic Fan in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 06-05-2007, 04:12 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •